‘Unfairly stigmatized’ anti-terror law not a tool of oppression –Calida

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Tuesday began his defense of the controversial anti-terrorism law before the Supreme Court (SC) amid allegations the measure could be abused and used against government critics.

At the resumption of oral arguments, Calida said there were safeguards in the law to prevent abuse, such as a prohibition against torture or coercion during interrogation and upholding the constitutional rights of persons under custodial investigation.

“It is crystal clear that the Anti-Terrorism Act is brimming with strong safeguards that will effectively prevent abuses in its implementation and protect persons under the custody of the law,” Calida said during the session, which was held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There are checks and balances in the law to make sure that grave abuse by the implementers will be penalized with imprisonment to deter exploitation of the law.”

Calida also rejected arguments that the law violated the freedoms of speech, expression, and of the press.

“The Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted to protect citizens from terroristic acts to ensure respect for the right to life [and] right to security of each citizen,” he said.

“When a speaker's words do not contribute to dialogue or the expression of ideas, but are instead intended to provoke harmful conduct, they have no value as instruments of speech.”

Calida added there was no actual justiciable controversy in this case, thus the 37 petitions allegedly failed to meet the requirements of judicial review.

Opponents of the law earlier said the Philippines should improve its defense against terrorism instead of implementing legislation that is allegedly riddled with constitutional infirmities.

Jose Anselmo Cadiz, counsel for several of the petitioners, told the high court on March 2 that the repealed Human Security Act of 2007 would have been sufficient to address terrorism.

“We all live in an imperfect world. There will be imperfections. We cannot guarantee a terror-free country. No country will be able to guarantee that, Your Honor. But in balancing our individual rights stated in the Bill of Rights, Your Honor, I think the Human Security Act is the better law,” he said.

Calida, however, said the current law “has been unfairly stigmatized.”

“Like any other law that has implications on individual rights, the Anti-Terrorism Act has been unfairly stigmatized as a mere legal ruse to quell opposition against the current administration. This is a monstrous lie,” he said,” he said.

“The Anti-Terrorism Act is not an instrument of oppression neither is it a tool to suppress the vibrance of our democracy. It is an embodiment of the state’s policy to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism, a commitment to peace in our day and future of our children.” — DVM, GMA News